Sunday, 25 May 2014

Now that Jim DiEugenio and John Kelin have published my essay
concerning Gerald Hill’s complicity in framing Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder
of Officer J.D. Tippit (which can be read here
on the CTKA.net website), in this blog post, I plan on responding to the various questions,
feedback, and criticisms concerning the essay from various forums and websites,
to the best of my ability when I have the time.Posted June
4, 2014:

Apparently, some of the links in the essay still aren’t
working. For those of you who are unable to view the film footage of Hill
smiling after he is asked if he thinks Oswald is the same man who shot Tippit,
I have provided the link to it here
(Hill can be seen smiling at about the 59 minute 40 second mark).

Posted June
8, 2014:

As I wrote in my essay; “Hill
also remarked that Oswald was subdued, disarmed, and handcuffed (in that order)
during a filmed interview with news reporters on the day of the assassination…”
In another filmed interview with news reporters on the day of the assassination
(which can be viewed here), Hill
explained that Oswald was subdued, disarmed, and handcuffed (in that order).

Posted June
11, 2014:

On Jefferson Morley’s website “JFK Facts,” a poster named
Ronnie Wayne wrote the following concerning my essay in response to another
poster named Sandy K.

“Thanks for
the link Sandy. I started reading the article last week but just finished it
tonight. Anyone really interested in the subject should. Thanks to Mr. Yusuf
and Farley in particular. The light went off for me when Hill rode the front passenger elevator to the
5th/6th floor. ! That’s impossible! Brian’s “guess” statement on 2-3 shells
corroborates James Tagues’s reporters statement of 2 shells. The whole who had
what gun at the Texas Theater when and O’s actions at the time are kind of mind
blowing.”

This can be read here.
I would like to thank Mr. Wayne for his comments. Although I’m not certain what
he meant when he wrote “Brian’s “guess” statement
on 2-3 shells corroborates James Tagues’s reporters statement of 2 shells,”
as discussed in the essay, detective Brian’s claim that he was on the sixth
floor of the TSBD is not credible, and that he was coerced into claiming that
Hill was on the sixth floor when the spent shell casings were discovered to
cover-up for Hill’s presence outside of the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley
inside DPD squad car 207. Posted June
15, 2014:

According to my blog statistics, many more people have read
through this post, than my post concerning the (potential) arguments against
Hill’s complicity in framing Oswald. I would ask that readers please take their
time to read through that post, and not just this one (click here to read it).

[Please note: The following discussion of the
potential arguments against Gerald Hill’s complicity in framing Oswald for the
murder of Officer J.D. Tippit was originally intended to be a part of this
writer’s essay on Hill’s complicity. The essay can be read here on the CTKA.net website].

Although the evidence discussed in this writer’s
essay demonstrates that DPD Sgt. Gerald Hill framed Oswald for the murder of Officer
J.D. Tippit, there are a number of question marks concerning his complicity.
For example, some might ask why Hill wouldn’t deny having possession of “Oswald’s”
revolver? As stated previously in the essay, Hill claimed that he had given the
revolver to Lt. T.L. Baker of the homicide and Robbery bureau. Secondly, he was
filmed showing the revolver (WCE 143) and the six live rounds inside the
cylinder to reporters shortly following Oswald’s arrest. Therefore, Hill
probably realised that if he lied about having possession of the revolver,
Baker, the reporters, and the news footage could have proven that he was lying,
and as a result, he could have come under suspicion of framing Oswald. Hill
died on July 29, 2011. According to his obituary, his grade point average at
the DPD academy was “…the highest ever till
a few years ago” (click here to
read his obituary). If this is accurate, then Hill was certainly no idiot.

Others may argue that if Hill was guilty of framing
Oswald, he would also have coerced Officer Ray Hawkins (who was his
subordinate) into keeping quiet about hearing him (Hill) say that he had
“Oswald’s” gun. Although this is certainly a valid argument, the fact
nevertheless remains that Hawkins said that Hill shouted out “I’ve got the gun.” When Hill testified
before the Warren Commission, he denied seeing Oswald holding onto a gun during
the scuffle inside the Theater (WC Volume VII, page 52). Whilst some might
believe that if Hill framed Oswald, he undoubtedly would have said that he had
seen Oswald with the gun. However, consider Hill may have thought that by
denying he had seen Oswald holding the gun; the Warren Commission wouldn’t
suspect him of framing Oswald. After all, it would have been in Hill’s best
interest to not come under suspicion.

Perhaps one of the biggest arguments against Hill’s
complicity is that he reported over the DPD radio that; “The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an
automatic 0.38, rather than a pistol.” There can be no doubt that Hill made
this transmission, as the recordings of the DPD radio communications (which can
be heard here on John McAdam’s
website) shows that Hill was the Officer who made the aforementioned
transmission. As this writer will discuss in another article on this blog, Hill
was most certainly lying when he made the aforementioned transmission over the
radio. The question is why? Consider that if Hill framed Oswald for Tippit’s
murder with the revolver (WC 143), the last
thing he would have wanted was for the DPD to suspect he was involved in the
murder of one of his fellow officers. Therefore, Hill may have thought that by
reporting over the radio that the spent shell casings at the murder scene
indicated to him that Tippit was killed by an automatic, his fellow Officers wouldn’t
have suspected him of framing Oswald.

Many conspiracy advocates are of the belief that WCE
143 was not the revolver used to kill Tippit. However, if Hill framed Oswald
for Tippit’s murder, then it makes absolutely no sense that he would have WCE
143 in his possession as opposed to the actual gun used to kill Tippit.
Secondly, it was determined by ballistically comparing the bullets removed from
Tippit’s head and body to bullets test fired from WCE 143, that it most likely was the revolver used to kill him. As
explained in part two of this writer’s review of With Malice (which can be read here),
on the night of the assassination, the DPD released only one of the bullets from
Tippit’s body (WCE 602) to FBI agent Vincent E. Drain (see under the subheading
VIII: Proof Positive). After the
bullet was examined in the FBI lab in Washington D.C. on the day following the
assassination, it was determined that WCE 143; “…is among those weapons which produce general rifling impressions of
the type found on [the bullet]” (WCE 2003).

As also explained in part two of this Writer’s
review of With Malice (under the same
subheading), the DPD did not release the four spent shell casing allegedly
found in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene to the FBI until November 28,
1963. They also neglected to release two of the bullets removed from Tippit’s
body, and the bullet removed from his head, to the FBI on the night of the
assassination (WCE 603-605). Captain Will Fritz told the FBI that the reason
the remaining three bullets were not released to the FBI on the night of the
assassination is because a record of their location had not been made. However,
as explained in part two of this writer’s review of With Malice (again under the subheading VIII: Proof Positive), Fritz is not to be considered credible, and
that the remaining three bullets were probably retained because the DPD was
concerned that the FBI might have determined that a different gun was used to
kill Tippit.

When FBI agent Courtlandt Cunningham testified
before the Warren Commission on April 1, 1964, he claimed that through a
ballistics examination of the four bullets removed from Tippit’s body and head,
he determined that all four were 0.38 special bullets (WC Volume III, page
475). Cunningham also explained that all four of the spent shell casings
allegedly found in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene were 0.38 specials
(ibid, page 465). He then went on to explain that the bullets removed from
Tippit’s body and head were fired from a gun barrel with five lands and groves
with a right twist; just like the barrel of WCE 143, and that the widths of the
lands and grooves on the bullet surfaces were identical to the ones produced by
the barrel of WCE 143 (ibid, pages 475 and 484). Although Cunningham claimed
that in his opinion, all four of the spent shell casings were fired from WCE
143 “to the exclusion of all other weapons”,
he nevertheless claimed that he couldn’t determine if any of the four bullets had
been fired from WCE 143 (ibid, pages 466 and 475).

According to Cunningham; “[WCE 602] was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic
marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine
whether or not it had been fired from [WCE 143]” and that “[WCE 603- 605] do bear microscopic marks
for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and
comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired –
these bullets themselves – had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not
they had been fired from Oswald’s revolver” (ibid, page 475). Cunningham’s
findings were shared by FBI agents Robert A. Frazier, and Charles L. Killion
(WC Volume VII, pages 590 and 591). Joseph D. Nicol, the superintendent of the
Bureau of Criminal identification and investigation for the state of Illinois;
who independently examined the bullets removed from Tippit’s body and head,
also shared Cunningham’s findings (WC Volume III, page 512). However, there was
one exception.

When Nicol testified before the Warren Commission,
he claimed that he found “sufficient
individual characteristics” on WCE 603, which led him to conclude that it
had been fired through the barrel of WCE 143 (ibid). The individual
characteristics to which Nicol was referring to were striations on the bullet
which he claimed were caused by the barrel of WCE 143 (ibid). But as even Dale
Myers admits in his book, Nicol’s finding that the bullet designated as WCE 603
was fired through the barrel of WCE 143 was not shared by any of the other
eight ballistics experts who examined the bullets (With Malice, Chapter 8). This writer should also point out that
ballistics experts for the HSCA also came to the same conclusion as FBI agent
Courtlandt Cunningham (HSCA Report, Volume VII, page 377). However, they also
noted that all four of the bullets bore signs of gas erosion; which is caused
by the hot gases produced during the burning of the powder used to propel the
bullets when the trigger of the gun is pulled (ibid, pages 377 and 412).

According to the report; “The [firearms] panel attributed [the gas erosion] to the firing of
either undersized bullets through the [WCE] 143 barrel or the barrel of the
revolver having become oversized due to wear and deterioration” (ibid). The
reader should keep in mind that the diameter of the barrel of WCE 143 was
slightly bigger than the diameter of the 0.38 special bullets, as the barrel
was originally designed for firing 0.38 Smith and Wesson bullets which have a
bigger diameter (WC Volume III, page 456). Whilst some might argue that the
lack of consistency between the microscopic scratches on the surfaces of the
bullets and the barrel of WCE 143 means that it was not fired through it,
Cunningham told the Warren Commission that; “Each
time [WCE 143] was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a
different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the
oversized 0.38 [Smith and Wesson] barrel. It would cause an erratic passage
down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent characteristic marks to be
impressed or scratched [onto] the surface of the bullets” (ibid, page 475).

Monty Lutz of the HSCA’s firearm panel testified
that the aforementioned problem can also be explained by the gas erosion of the
bullet surfaces (HSCA Report, Volume I, page 486). The HSCA firearms panel were
also unable to positively identify the bullets removed from Tippit’s body and
head due to the “…extensive damage to the
bullets…The panel attributed this to the effects of impact, penetration and
wiping” (ibid, Volume VII, page ). Suffice it to say; the evidence
discussed above strongly suggests that WCE 143 was the gun used to kill Tippit. But could the DPD or the FBI have
switched the bullets removed from the head and body of Tippit, for ones which
they fired from WCE 143, to ensure that Oswald would be found guilty of killing
Tippit? As discussed in part two of this writer’s review of With Malice (under the subheading VII: Proof positive), the evidence
indicates that the DPD switched the spent shell casings discovered in the
vicinity of the Tippit murder scene with ones which they fired through WCE 143,
to ensure that the spent shell casings they delivered to the FBI on November
28, 1963, would be identified as having been fired from it.

But if the DPD fired the bullet which they released
to the FBI on the night of the assassination (WCE 602) through WCE 143 to
incriminate Oswald for Tippit’s murder, then it stands to reason that they
would also have substituted the four spent shell casings found in the vicinity
of the Tippit murder scene, for ones which they fired from WCE 143. If this was
the case, it makes little sense that they wouldn’t have released the
substituted spent shell casings to the FBI on the very same night. As for the
FBI, even if we are to believe that
the reason the DPD delayed the release of the remaining three bullets to the
FBI because a record of their location had not been made, it is entirely
possible that the FBI may have substituted all four of the bullets for ones
which they fired through WCE 143; and then used the excuse that they could not
positively identify the bullets as being fired through the gun due to the fact
that the 0.38 special bullets were fired through a slightly oversized barrel.

But in spite of this possibility, it is nevertheless
a fact that Gerald Hill was filmed showing reporters WCE 143 shortly following
Oswald’s arrest; and that it makes very little (if any) sense that he would
frame Oswald with that gun if a different gun had been used to kill Tippit.
There is very little doubt in this writer’s mind that Tippit’s killer
deliberately discarded the spent shell casings, to ensure that when they would
be ballistically examined by experts, they would have determined that the spent
shell casings had been fired through WCE 143. If Hill had planned in advance
that he would report over the DPD radio that the spent shell casings were fired
from an automatic in order to divert suspicion away from himself, then perhaps
the plan was for Tippit’s killer to discard them all in a small area, so that
Hill could then use that as an excuse for why he “believed” the spent shell
casings were fired from an automatic, if he were asked about his
misidentification.

Perhaps in his haste to leave the Tippit murder
scene, Tippit’s killer simply forgot to discard all of the spent shell casings
in a small area near the front passenger side of Tippit’s car from where he
fired the gun. Most researchers are also aware of the fact that DPD officer
Howell W. Summers reported over the DPD radio that he had an “eyeball witness” who thought that
Tippit’s killer was armed with a 0.32 caliber dark finish automatic (WCE
705/1974). Although it is commonly believed that the witness in question was
Ted Callaway, as explained in part 1 of this writer’s review of With Malice, there is very good reason
to doubt that Callaway ever observed Tippit’s killer; and that he was coerced
by the DPD into identifying Oswald as the killer (see under the subheading VII: A bird in the hand). This writer
also advocated the possibility that the witness in question was B.D. Searcy,
who worked for the Harris Bros. auto sales under Callaway (WC Volume III, page
351).

Whilst many conspiracy advocates have used the
identification of the gun as an automatic by the witness as evidence that
Tippit’s killer was actually armed with an automatic, the witness could easily
have been mistaken depending on the distance from which he observed the gun,
and because he may have only caught a glimpse of it. This may have been because
the witness in question was more concerned about what the man with the gun
looked like. Others will undoubtedly argue that if Oswald didn’t carry WCE 143
into the Theater with him, he would have shouted out at the news reporters
(when he had the opportunity to do so) that he didn’t have a gun when he was
arrested, and that he was being framed. However, the truth is that nobody knows
exactly what was going through Oswald’s mind as he was paraded before the media
after being accused of killing both Tippit and the President.

In this writer’s opinion, there are several possible
explanations for why Oswald didn’t claim that he was being framed and wasn’t
carrying a gun on his person when arrested. For one thing, Oswald probably
thought that it wouldn’t be a good idea for him to accuse the DPD of framing
him whilst he was under their custody and to wait until his forthcoming trial
in court to make such an accusation through his defence counsel. After all,
Oswald probably would have realised that if he did make such an accusation, it
wouldn’t have done him any good, as the DPD would have denied the accusation
without even the slightest hesitation. Furthermore, Oswald may have thought
that the news reporters would simply have scoffed at him for accusing the DPD
of framing him.

It is also not beyond the realm of possibility to
believe that due to the shock of being arrested and then accused of killing a
Police Officer (and betrayed by those who lured him to the Texas theater), and
due to the stress, embarrassment, and humiliation of being paraded before the
media, Oswald was not able to think clearly enough to deny carrying a gun and
to explain that he was being framed. Although it may be easy for researchers
who haven’t been in Oswald’s place to dismiss the aforementioned reasons as
being ridiculous, the truth is that these same researchers cannot state as a fact
that such is the case. There may also be another explanation for why Oswald
didn’t proclaim before the media that he was being framed and didn’t carry a
gun into the Theater. As the inimitable Australian researcher Greg Parker has
discussed on his research forum, Oswald likely had Asperger’s syndrome (see the
thread entitled: Why Oswald was more
likely to have suffered Asperger’s than Dyslexia). The reader is strongly
encouraged to read through Parker’s discussion.

In his online book The complete guide to Asperger’s syndrome (which can be read here), Dr. Tony Attwood writes that; “Increased stress levels, especially when
trying to engage in a conversation in a crowded area, can affect the language
comprehension and verbal fluency of the person with Asperger’s syndrome”
(page 224). As Attwood also writes; “Verbal
fluency is affected by anxiety…being lost for words or even mute may be due to
high level of anxiety. Certainly some adults with Asperger’s syndrome are prone
to stuttering when anxious. Here the problem is not strictly impairment in
language skills, but the effect of emotion on the ability to speak” (pages
223 and 224). There can be little doubt that Oswald would have been feeling a
high level of anxiety as he was paraded before the media. Therefore, if Oswald
had Asperger’s syndrome (as Parker’s research indicates) then this could also explain why he didn’t proclaim
before the news reporters that he was being framed, and that he wasn’t carrying
a gun when he was arrested.

The reader should keep in mind that all five of the
officers who escorted Oswald to DPD headquarters following his arrest claimed
that Oswald admitted to having WCE 143 with him inside the Theater en route to
Police headquarters (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Items 12 and
28), (WC Volume VII, pages 40 and 61). In fact, detective Paul Bentley made
this claim during his filmed interview with WFAA-TV on the day following the
assassination (see here). But as discussed
in part 2 of this writer’s review of With
Malice, the DPD needed Oswald to be found guilty for Tippit’s murder, to
make it appear as though he was a cold blooded murderer who was also capable of
assassinating the President. Whilst some might argue that this is a ridiculous
notion, consider that with the President of the United States of America
arrogantly gunned down in broad daylight and in full public view; and with the
entire United States (and the world for that matter) anxiously waiting to learn
who was responsible for that heinous act, the DPD needed someone to be found guilty! Otherwise, they would have faced
severe shame and humiliation after telling the public that they didn’t know who
was responsible.

As many researchers such as Jim DiEugenio have
pointed out, during the tenure of Henry Wade as the district attorney of
Dallas, the DPD were responsible for helping to convict people for crimes which
they didn’t commit (readers are strongly encouraged to read through this article on the corruption of both
Wade and the DPD). There can be little doubt that Tippit’s killer would have
resembled Oswald somewhat, in the hope that any would be witnesses would be
able to tell the DPD that Oswald was Tippit’s killer. Given the information the
DPD undoubtedly had from Gerald Hill that Oswald was allegedly carrying WCE 143
when he was arrested inside the Theater; and the fact that he left the TSBD
shortly following the assassination, the DPD could then argue that Oswald shot
Tippit in cold blood to avoid being arrested for the President’s assassination.

But if the DPD had coerced Bentley and others into
claiming that Oswald admitted to carrying the gun into the Theater as they
escorted him to DPD headquarters, then why weren’t they also coerced into
claiming that Oswald admitted to shooting Tippit? Consider that if Oswald really did admit to killing Tippit,
there can be no doubt that the media would have known about his confession on
the day of the assassination; and that it would have made the headlines. The
DPD (and Hill for that matter) must have realised that they didn’t have a
legitimate excuse for why they didn’t inform the media about Oswald’s
“confession” to killing Tippit on the day of the assassination, and that this
is the reason why Bentley and others weren’t coerced into claiming that Oswald
confessed to killing Tippit. But since the DPD needed Oswald to have at least
admitted to carrying WCE 143 with him inside the Theater, Bentley and others
were coerced into claiming that this was the case.

It is also worthwhile keeping in mind that in his
book, Tony Attwood also writes that; “Experience
has indicated that people with Asperger’s who have committed a [criminal]
offence have often been quick to confess and justify their actions” (page
339). According to Attwood, this is because “They
cannot understand what all the fuss is about; their actions were logical,
justified and appropriate and described without any associated emotions or
remorse” (ibid). In fact, Attwood also writes that; “The overwhelming majority of people with Asperger’s syndrome are
law-abiding citizens, often with very clear and conventional opinions as to
what is morally and legally right and wrong” (page 335). Therefore, if
Oswald had Asperger’s syndrome; and if he really did assassinate President
Kennedy and then kill Tippit, he likely would have confessed to committing the
crimes.

When Hill testified before the Warren Commission, he
claimed that he told the FBI that he knew Jack Ruby prior to the assassination
(WC Volume VII, page 63). The majority of conspiracy advocates believe that
Ruby was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and was used to
kill Oswald. Commonly cited reasons for Oswald’s murder include the following:
Oswald was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate the President in some
capacity, and was killed to prevent him from possibly revealing the names of
the conspirators etc. Another belief is that because Oswald was framed for the
assassination of the President, he was killed to prevent him from possibly
being acquitted in court. Whilst the reader may believe that Hill wouldn’t have
told the FBI, and then the Warren Commission, that he knew Ruby if they were
both involved in the assassination of the President, consider that Hill may
have thought that by making such an admission, the FBI and the Warren
Commission wouldn’t have suspected that he was involved with Ruby in the
President’s assassination.

Although Hill told the FBI on November 25, 1963,
that his “…association with Jack Ruby
consisted strictly of contacts with Ruby on business matters,” former DPD
Officer Harry Olsen (a man whose own actions on the day of the assassination
have come under suspicion) told former FBI agent and investigator for Jim
Garrison; William Turner, that Hill was the most frequent visitor to Ruby’s Carousel
club (click here to read the
interview), (WCD 4, page 309). As this writer has previously pointed out in the
essay on Hill, it was Hill who informed the DPD as to the whereabouts of Harry
Olsen after he left Dallas. It is therefore possible that after learning that
Ruby was suspected of being involved in the assassination, Olsen may have told
Turner that Hill was the most frequent visitor to the Carousel club to get back
at him by making it appear as though Hill could have been involved in the
assassination.

But if this truly was the case, then it stands to
reason that Olsen would have told Turner that he suspected Hill of being
involved in the assassination. With this in mind, it is this writer’s opinion
that Olsen was probably being truthful when he told Turner that Hill was the
most frequent visitor to the Carousel club. Some might argue that it is of no
real significance that Ruby was acquainted with Hill, since he was acquainted
with many DPD Officers. However, it is this writer’s opinion that Olsen’s claim
is significant since Hill likely framed Oswald for Tippit’s murder, and since
Ruby was the man who ultimately killed him. Most researchers of the
assassination are also aware of the allegation that Oswald used a long paper
sack to carry the rifle he allegedly used to assassinate the President, which
the DPD purportedly discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD next to the
window from where the President was shot. As several researchers such as Ian
Griggs and Pat Speer have shown, the DPD lied about discovering the sack next
to the aforementioned window (click here
to read Speer’s discussion of the alleged discovery on his website).

During his testimony before the Warren Commission,
Hill denied seeing the long sack when he was on the sixth floor of the TSBD (WC
Volume VII, page 65). Although some might argue that Hill surely would have
stated that he had seen the sack if he was guilty of framing Oswald, such a
belief assumes that every DPD Officer
who was present on the sixth floor of the TSBD following the assassination was
coerced into claiming that they had seen it. To give the reader an example of
why this isn’t true, let’s consider the testimonies of detective Richard Sims,
and his partner Elmer Boyd. Although Sims told the Warren Commission that he
had seen the so-called sack, Boyd told the Commission; “I don’t believe I did” (ibid, pages 122 and 162). In fact, not
even Captain Fritz claimed during his testimony before the Warren Commission
that he had seen the so-called paper gun sack, stating instead that he wasn’t on
the sixth floor of the TSBD when it was allegedly discovered there (WC Volume
IV, page 220).

When Hill was interviewed by Bob Whitten of KCRA
radio on the day of the assassination, he told Whitten that “…a gun was found on the sixth floor [of the
TSBD] where it had been hidden; that – I have been told and I can’t verify this
either way; it was an officer – it was made in Argentina” (WCD 1210, page
5). Unlike the majority of conspiracy advocates, it this writer’s belief that
the Italian made Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the gun used to shoot the
President from the sixth floor of the TSBD. Even if Hill was being truthful
when he stated that another Officer told him that the rifle was made in
Argentina, why would he state this on radio if he was involved in the
conspiracy to assassinate the President, and if the Italian made Mannlicher
Carcano rifle was used to shoot him? Again, we should consider the possibility
that Hill may have only said this so that he wouldn’t be suspected of being
involved in the President’s assassination.

On a final note, there is one other possible
argument against Hill’s complicity this writer would like to address. According
to Hill’s obituary; “[Hill] was also a
Dallas County Constable and [during] the last 8 years of his life [he] worked
with the security staff at the Duncanville High School. During all this time he
served the community of Duncanville in the Lion's Club, Friends of the
Duncanville Public Library and the Duncanville Community Theatre. He was a City
Council Member and served on several boards. He was a long time active member
at Duncanville's First Baptist Church.” Although some might argue that a
man who was involved in the murder of one of his fellow Police Officers and in
the framing of an innocent for that murder, couldn’t possibly have been
involved in the above, it is entirely possible that Hill may have come to
regret (for one reason or another) his involvement in the assassination,
Tippit’s murder, and for framing Oswald. He may have thought that by partaking in
the above, he would (in a way) make up for his past sins.

Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Total Pageviews

Followers

Best book on the JFK assassination

After reading through my post concerning the fake selective service card bearing the name Alek James Hidell, do you believe that Oswald wasn't carrying it in his wallet when arrested, and found instead in a wallet at the Tippit murder scene?

About Me

I am a dedicated JFK assassination researcher who has no reservations about using profanity against bullshit talkers and pricks who frequent the various JFK assassination forums. If anyone has a problem with that, I frankly could care less.